The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been
critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to
include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated
the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16
children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week
after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a
citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that
self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people
take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely
injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them
over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Donutz

12-31-2012 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loonies
(Post 559458)

Saw this on another forum...

I'd say it's possible that some of the sentences in there are based loosely on fact.

Let me just respond by asking this question: What do you think the chances are that the person who wrote this is being objective and reporting facts as dispassionately and fairly as possible?

oldmate

01-01-2013 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf
(Post 559544)

This case in England would also be problematic here in America based upon excessive force laws. In no state are you allowed to kill an intruder simply because they are in the home or to protect property. You better damn well be able to prove that your life was in danger or you are going to jail. A big problem with most gun owners in this country is that they are totally ignorant of the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. Plenty of Americans are also serving long prison sentences for killing an intruder but could not prove that their life was in danger. Too many people with a CCW think its a license to kill any criminal and their possession of a gun is actually a major liability. Protecting your property is not a justification of the use of deadly force in the eyes of the American courts either.

The article states the intruder "brandishes it as if to strike" this is the major weakness in the story. Cleverly worded however.

I would think it would be the prosecution's job to have to prove that the defendant's life wasn't in danger, no?

readimag

01-01-2013 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf
(Post 559554)

nobody needs an AR15 and a box of 50 round clips.

Um....... zombies just look at the trailer for the new movie world war z. Totally need that ammo lol.

I agree with you people dont take time to read the gun laws of there state or the state they are visiting. I know it sounds dumb but I always call and the court of the state I am going to where I can find there gun laws. Plus there are lots of stories out there of people saving people with guns but that stuff does not sell in the news fear and panic do.

TorpedoVegas

01-01-2013 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by readimag
(Post 559576)

Plus there are lots of stories out there of people saving people with guns but that stuff does not sell in the news fear and panic do.

Are you kidding...the news loves hero stories as much as they love tragedy... Remember when that pilot landed the jet in Hudson River...big hero story. There are no hero stories about saving people with guns because they just don't happen...vigilantes are not heros.. Like that guy who shot the teen last year because he thought he was a threat walking home through a gated community...he thought he was a big hero for a few minutes.

readimag

01-01-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpedoVegas
(Post 559578)

There are no hero stories about saving people with guns because they just don't happen...vigilantes are not heros.. Like that guy who shot the teen last year because he thought he was a threat walking home through a gated community...he thought he was a big hero for a few minutes.

And where is he now in the news on thats right … it is old news the national news does not care about it.

yeah that one sounds awesome... a guy shoots an adult and 2 teens (one of them in the face) instead of just giving up his wallet.... what a hero

chomps1211

01-01-2013 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by readimag
(Post 559576)

...there are lots of stories out there of people saving people with guns but that stuff does not sell in the news fear and panic do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpedoVegas
(Post 559578)

Are you kidding...the news loves hero stories as much as they love tragedy...

There are no hero stories about saving people with guns because they just don't happen...vigilantes are not heros..

Normally I wouldn't post in this sort of (...discussion?) thread. Mostly because they tend to get very heated, often to the point of personal attacks, and generally don't seem to accomplish much more than get everyone involved pissed off! (...I am NOT anti-gun, I do believe in "reasonable" gun laws even if I'm not etirely sure what "reasonable would be! I do like to shoot, military trained & not a half bad shot either!! but I do not own or carry a gun myself! And for the record, I do not claim have any answers on this issue! Just opinions, and we ALL know about "Opinions!" don't we?) I don't believe Mine smell any better! ;)

However, I thought that both of these comments raised an interesting point! Considering states like Texas, Alaska, and some others, have very (...liberal?) open carry laws,.. I can't recall a single news report of someone (...private individual mind you, not off duty police, armed security, etc.) stopping some nut job or criminal bent on killing people by using a gun they happened to be legally carrying!!!

I suspect many will chime in with the ever popular,.. "Liberal Media," but what about "Fair & Balanced" Fox News?? Hell, the NRA even,!! Seems they'd want to be all over something like that!!

Still, I can't recall a single story!! Recent Past or present! Can anyone point to something I maybe missed on this?? (...I do remember one or two reports of "Un-armed" individuals taking down a gunman,.. The guy shooting an AK @ the White House springs to mind first!) IDK,.. maybe there is a " media conspiracy?" Seems like we would have, should have heard of this occurring at least once or twice at some point, especially in those so called "Gun States" I mentioned earlier, right?!!!

What do you think?

killclimbz

01-01-2013 10:36 AM

1 Attachment(s)

I just like how the gun advocates are making what ever regulation being talked about as a ban on all guns. As far as I can tell, nothing of that sort has happened.

As far as this story goes. If someone breaks into your house in Colorado while you are there, you can pretty much shoot them dead. All you have to say is you were afraid for your life. Unless that person is a toddler or some elderly unarmed person you are probably not going to get charged.

There are some supposed stories about gun defense "saving" lives. The funny part is someone innocent had to lose their life first. Lots of things need to be addressed, not just guns, but I am tired of gun nuts not even willing to come to the table and discuss how to better manage this. By doing that, they are enabling exactly what they fear to happen.

IndraRipper

01-01-2013 11:13 AM

Haven't posted here in a while so may be jumping in the deep end with this post but here goes....
This is not a personal thing but I really hate it when people (Usually right wing Americans) use the UK as an "example" when thy have no idea about things over here and are quick to say out systems don't work or are heavily flawed.
I have seen it done in regards to gun laws and to national health care.
They always tend to pick very particular and rare cases.
The UK and the USA are extremely different, therefore what works for one won't necessarily work for the other.
I believe our gun laws are pretty much perfect right now and need not be changed (yet).
The UK is a smaller and far more densely populated place than the USA, very few people have need for "long guns" as they're only really used for hunting and sport shooting.
The majority of our criminals do not poses firearms and therefore our residents generally do not need self defence weapons like hand guns.
The vast majority of shootings over here happen with completely illegal guns.
Most guns on the streets of London (The largest city and where I live) are illegal imports from eastern Europe, although you can get Glocks and the gangsta favourite the Mac 10s and 11s.